Why can't we live with the idea that everyone has his own story or perception, and first-hand stories -whether they are supporting or undermining "accepted history"- should at the very least be given their value as documented oral history?

Well, you would have noted that I did... originally...

That was May 8 when fines posted that challenge. I decided to let it rest and not get caught up in any arguments. But now he's shown his arrogance and inability to accept personal testimonies I feel he has to be called to answer.

Jack Brabham, I don't have to explain, was a 3-times World Champion and the man who started the rear-engined revolution at Indy. He was a very astute driver who survived a long time in front line racing when many didn't... he was obviously a man who took note of warnings and knew what to look for.

Should his oft-told (clearly he's been telling people that for years!) story of this incident at Indianapolis be discounted because people who weren't there don't reckon it could have happened?

Equally as obvious is the fact that speeds at Indy were very high. So even if he was well back, prudence would suggest that reining in your speed dramatically would enhance your prospects of survival. Cars tend to go everywhere when there's a crash up ahead and Jack would have known that.

If fines, or anyone, can prove to me that Jack couldn't see Macdonald at the time he got out of shape, then I'll doubt Jack's story. Otherwise nobody has a right to discount it.

Here's the problem. I agree with both of you regarding Brabham's story, but I also agree with fines that first hand observations, especially when in the context of a panic situation, are often NOT accurate. I think it's also emotional and possibly disingenuous to say that fines is accusing Brabham of lying. There's a HUGE different between saying that he believes someone is lying and saying that he is mistaken.

I also find the whole idea of taking some sort of side in this utterly ridiculous. I felt, and still feel, that the whole squabble would be best left ignored and dropped. I also felt it should have been nipped in the bud but this is not my forum to moderate. For Ray to bring it up again quoting a post from May 8th, almost 3 months ago and well before the blowup between Buford & fines, is to me just stirring the pot.

fines has said that Brabham's story is, in his own term, "bullsh*t". Where I come from, that means it's a lie. So was I telling the lie or was Sir Jack?

Clearly, with this story being quoted quite independently in Jack's own book, he's saying that Jack himself is telling porkies. But he's also here saying that I'm in a position to stop it... that if I don't I am also carrying on the "bullsh*t".

I don't like my integrity being questioned, and I'm certainly not putting up with it from someone who PMs me in the way he has for 'defending Buford's lies.' Yet nobody has proved to me that Buford is a liar.

I gather the assertion is that Buford never raced, but we've seen pictures on this very forum of him racing. Don Capps has visited him and gone through his family photos and other records of his racing, the IMRRC has taken on board much of this stuff too... where are the lies in that?

What it sounds like to me is that fines is saying that if he doesn't know about it then it must be a lie. Yet isn't it equally a lie if a truth is denied?

Whether this dates back to before the 'blowup' or not is irrelevant. What matters is the truth and respect for the truth. It does matter to me that Buford has left the forum because of this kind of treatment, that's a loss to us all.

What I'm saying here is it's "Put up or shut up" time, fines. Prove to me that Sir Jack couldn't see Macdonald or apologise to me and to Sir Jack.

I understand your reasoning Ray, I just feel this has been a sore on TNF and with neither side willing to back down, I think we'd be better off not perpetuating it. I'll leave the last word to you and won't comment further.

The sad truth of the matter is that since the principal players in this tragedy were consumed by it, we will probably never really know what actually happened. All we have to go on are eyewitness and insider accounts that are highly suspect given the emotional distress inherent in witnessing and being involved in an incident so horrifying that it almost defies description. Survivor's guilt plays a huge role in coloring perceptions as well as the fact that for those directly involved, this accident and it's aftermath was the most traumatic event in their professional lives.

There is evidence, however, as has been presented here in this thread that the common perception that Dave MacDonald's poor judgement and Mickey Thompson's incompetence and poor development efforts were the principal causes of the tragedy are faulty at best...and this needs to be brought to the attention of every motorsports enthusiast in a concise manner.

To my knowledge, no motorsports journalist has ever been able to do that. Henry Jones is trying. I'm trying...but I'm not much of a journalist.

The facts have been presented here many times. It was a racing accident, nothing more. That should be clear by now. The views expressed by the newest poster to this forum are simplistic and based on a much more modern-day concept of the design and development of race cars, in my view. The poster has a right to his/her opinions, but they're really not based on facts that have been uncovered here. This view is, unfortunately,still prevalent in the motorsports community; and it really demeans both the person holding the view and the men who were involved in the tragedy.

As for Jack Brabham's quote...well, he should know what he was told, and what he saw. His level of visual acuity has been discussed here before, and is of a much higher level than any of us mere mortals could ever aspire to, or even comprehend. His view of the ensuing accident is open to the same scrutiny as everyone else's who was involved in the incident; he may not have interpreted the actions of the #83 car with 100% accuracy, but there is little doubt in my mind that he was able to see the car lose control. The main point of his story is that he was made aware of the possibility that there might be a problem with the #83, and he took advantage of that warning. Reading anything else into that story is a rather dubious endeavor.

Ray and Michael...please stop fighting. Everything, every piece of evidence in this situation has to be taken with a grain of salt...and we're all at the age where we have to watch our blood pressure.

I'm an avid reader of TNF, but rarely post, and I wish this post can bring some light on the divergence between Ray and Michael, and possibly make the peace between them.

First, my dictionary states : Bullshit - (Noun). Nonsense, rubbish, egocentric boasting.So, the more correct interpretation of Fines comment is that is nonsense the affirmative of Sir Jack that Masten's advice probably saved his life. He's not calling Sir Jack or Ray a liar. Obviously, that's my interpretation.

Second, I looked all movies on the accident, searching for any motives of Fines comments, and found that Sir Jack's life wasn't at risk by this accident because he was 14 positions behind MacDonald, starting the race 11 positions behind him, and perhaps that is the reason Fines called it "bullshit" (nonsense), because Sir Jack wasn't involved in the accident, in fact he was the 6th car to pass safely and slowly by the flaming wrecks. So , his life wasn't saved by any advice, his life wasn't at risk by this accident, it's nonsense to say any advice saved his life, because he was far away from MacDonald since the start, with plenty of time to avoid anything wrong. It was an exaggerated commentary, but understandable and perfectly normal under the circumstances Sir Jack experienced that day (Gregory's words were retained forever, given the horror of the accident).

Please Ray and Michael, think carefully, the peace is in your hands.

To illustrate the second item, I've put the Driver's names in a picture posted here sometime ago:

I do have a couple questions in regards to the IDs of a couple of the cars.

Johnny Boyd started 13th yet he doesnt appear in in the pic , was he ahead of hurtibise allready by this point?Or is the person labled McElreath (started 26th)41actually Boyd?

Cheesbourg Had started 33rd yet it seems he had moved up to about 20th in only 2 laps with a very slow qualifying car.(is this possibly Tinglested or Bobby Grim?)

Stevenson WAS involved in the wreck yet in the pic he is listed as being right in front of Brabham. Plus he is behind 4 cars who missed the wreck.

More food for thought , there are just 9 survivors from the 1964 race still alive . And of those 9 their starting spots were :Jones 4th, Foyt 5th , Gurney 6th, Rutherford 15th , Unser 22nd, Brabham 25th , McElreath 26th Harkey 27th ,Malone 30th. Very few starters not involved in the wreck that could be potential witnesses are left adding to the ability to ask them what went on.

I do have a couple questions in regards to the IDs of a couple of the cars.

Johnny Boyd started 13th yet he doesnt appear in in the pic , was he ahead of hurtibise allready by this point?Or is the person labled McElreath (started 26th)41actually Boyd?

Cheesbourg Had started 33rd yet it seems he had moved up to about 20th in only 2 laps with a very slow qualifying car.(is this possibly Tinglested or Bobby Grim?)

Stevenson WAS involved in the wreck yet in the pic he is listed as being right in front of Brabham. Plus he is behind 4 cars who missed the wreck.

More food for thought , there are just 9 survivors from the 1964 race still alive . And of those 9 their starting spots were :Jones 4th, Foyt 5th , Gurney 6th, Rutherford 15th , Unser 22nd, Brabham 25th , McElreath 26th Harkey 27th ,Malone 30th. Very few starters not involved in the wreck that could be potential witnesses are left adding to the ability to ask them what went on.

Paul

Paul, I have some doubt on Rathmann, it could be Boyd instead. Cheesbourg made an exceptional start, and his car can be well identified in the movies. As for Stevenson, he did not hit the wrecks directly, in the movies he accelerates hard after passing the wreckage and I suppose he hits some parts scattered on the track, its difficult to see in the Youtube movies. Here is one more picture with drivers names, 1 or 2 seconds after that of the previous post (this picture was posted here previously, I only put the names). You can see pictures of RW Mackenzie in the beginning of this thread identifying drivers at the first turn, you'll see Chesbourg and others coming from behind.

I'm somewhat amazed Chesbourg had that great a start with a car that hadnt shown that much in practice and qualifying.Make me wonder what Malone and Harkey could say to confirm or deny what Brabham has stated cuz after all they all made up ROW 9 . Plus i have never seen them quoted much about the 1964 race ..probably due to the fact they were never big stars at indy and that led reporters to go talk to "name " drivers that have now passed away over time. Cuz at this point they are the back of the field starters left alive.( Provided that the car in question is actually Boyd and not mcElreath , cuz then McElreath would also become a key surviving witness.)

I've checked it now: I made 2 mistakes, instead of Rathmann is Boyd, and instead of McElreath is Rathmann (only in the B&W picture).
I have no doubt on the identification of Branson, Sutton, Sachs, Rutherford, Duman, Unser, Chesbourg, Johnny White, Chuck Stevenson and Jack Brabham.
I'll correct the pictures and will edit the corresponding posts soon.

EDIT: Thanks to Paul (Lemnpiper) now the drivers names are all correct in both pictures. Posts 1306 & 1308 have been edited accordingly.

I've checked it now: I made 2 mistakes, instead of Rathmann is Boyd, and instead of McElreath is Rathmann (only in the B&W picture).I have no doubt on the identification of Branson, Sutton, Sachs, Rutherford, Duman, Unser, Chesbourg, Johnny White, Chuck Stevenson and Jack Brabham. I'll correct the pictures and will edit the corresponding posts soon.

EDIT: Thanks to Paul (Lemnpiper) now the drivers names are all correct in both pictures. Posts 1306 & 1308 have been edited accordingly.

Oscar,

Compliments for the job you did with that picture. Also to them who corrected you.

ovfi - I believe you can replace your ? by the infield pole in the black & white photo with McElreath. Apologies if my I.D. is mistaken.

Brian

I support this identification: the giveaway is that the car appears to have white sidewall tires .And the Novis ran with white sidewall tires on race day that year exactly for this purpose: quick identification.

Actually this is one of great things about this forum , someone posts something and if someone thinks it may be incorrect to a degree we can double check based upon info from other sources to make the best effort that what is posted here is as correct as possible.

It's sorta like meeting A J Foyt at the recent IRL races at Richmond. Everyone knows A J by sight , BUT how many truely realize the HISTORY A J knows about Indy car racing that he can still discuss. That's why no matter how some folks feel some drivers may not deserve to drive at Indy , the fact remains they did and one day could become one of the last witnesses left able to talk about the era they competed in.

I hope deep down with the 100th anniversary of the Indy 500 coming up the speedway makes a special effort to honor the drivers that while not big stars at the speedway in thier career can at the least be recorded about what went on for other in future years to listen to.

Very often it's the "lesser lights" who have the best stories to tell.

ovfi - I believe you can replace your ? by the infield pole in the black & white photo with McElreath. Apologies if my I.D. is mistaken.

Brian

Brian, I amended the B&W photo (post 1306) to include McElreath, well confirmed by Henri observation of the white sidewall tires.

Henri, thanks for your kind words.

Note: If someone wants to check driver's identities on the movies of YouTube, it will be noted that the first car to appear exiting the wreckage area after Rutherford/Duman/Unser is Boyd, the second Johnny White, the third Chesbourg, meaning White overtook Chesbourg inside the wreckage area. I lost a lot of time before understanding this confusion, and I misidentified Boyd as Dick Rathmann because of a shine in the car's nose made me think it was a red car with white nose.I also have a photo from behind taken at the moment Stevenson and Brabham are entering the wreckage area, showing interesting things as how many cars slowed down so fast and Norm Hall didn't, losing it well before the accident area, and also helps to identify the last car of post 1306 photo as Bobby Grim. But, this photo was downloaded in 2002 from a website on this subject and the website doesn't exists anymore, I don't know if it is permitted to post it here.

Jack Brabham, I don't have to explain, was a 3-times World Champion and the man who started the rear-engined revolution at Indy. He was a very astute driver who survived a long time in front line racing when many didn't... he was obviously a man who took note of warnings and knew what to look for.

Should his oft-told (clearly he's been telling people that for years!) story of this incident at Indianapolis be discounted because people who weren't there don't reckon it could have happened?

Equally as obvious is the fact that speeds at Indy were very high. So even if he was well back, prudence would suggest that reining in your speed dramatically would enhance your prospects of survival. Cars tend to go everywhere when there's a crash up ahead and Jack would have known that.

If fines, or anyone, can prove to me that Jack couldn't see Macdonald at the time he got out of shape, then I'll doubt Jack's story. Otherwise nobody has a right to discount it.

Brabham's 1971 book, "When the Flag Drops" has no mention of a warning from Gregory...

"That year is one I shall not forget for another reason. It became obvious during practice that the Mickey Thompson cars were difficult to control and Dave MacDonald, a promising young "rookie", was driving one. He had qualified fourteenth, but one the first lap he lost control and that terrible accident happened. I was right behind it all and it was really terrifying. You couldn't believe such a thing was happening in front of you." etc. etc. for another two paragraphs......

But, nothing about Gregory, or a warning, or keeping an eye on MacDonald, or an expectation of a Thompson car crashing.

Actually this is one of great things about this forum , someone posts something and if someone thinks it may be incorrect to a degree we can double check based upon info from other sources to make the best effort that what is posted here is as correct as possible.

It's sorta like meeting A J Foyt at the recent IRL races at Richmond. Everyone knows A J by sight , BUT how many truely realize the HISTORY A J knows about Indy car racing that he can still discuss. That's why no matter how some folks feel some drivers may not deserve to drive at Indy , the fact remains they did and one day could become one of the last witnesses left able to talk about the era they competed in.

I hope deep down with the 100th anniversary of the Indy 500 coming up the speedway makes a special effort to honor the drivers that while not big stars at the speedway in thier career can at the least be recorded about what went on for other in future years to listen to.

Very often it's the "lesser lights" who have the best stories to tell.

Paul

Funny you mention AJ's knowledge about Indy.

When George Peters and I worked on Vol.2 of the Novis we got two diferent people speaking about a testdrive AJ Foyt did in a Granatelli Novi. Both men swearing on everything I dared to forward to swear upon it was true. Given the anecdotes involve, i believed them because what happened was indeed memorable if you were there.When I interviewed AJ about it he categorically denied ever having driven a Novi on any occasion.To AJ's defence: with the many races and cars he drove I can imagine forgetting about a test hop. But even the curious details about that test I told him didn't ring a bell with him anymore. He never ever drove a Novi. Period. He almost became rude to me, I guess since I was wasting his time about something he had never done.

One year later, I was permitted to go through the picture pooks of IMS Photos and till my utter surprise I ran into a few pictures of the April '64 test and there is was: a picture of AJ Foyt in the Novi with the odd specification detail that my two informants had spoken about. And that Novi was, of all chance, the white one that was identified in the pictures....

Another approval that drivers sometimes forget something they were involved with what is of importance to put history straight. But for them was of no relevance.

Looking at those pictures with names added - given the Brabham's position at the time of MacDonald's initial crash, would he be able at all to see from there a car that is getting out of shape at the exit of Turn 4?

It was the beginning of the incident Jack was looking for, not the result.

Ray,

Please don't take this personal or as an attack on Sir Jack Brabham with whom I also have positve experiences.Please allow me to make the following comments.I invite you to reply on it . And if you are right, I am man enough to tell I was wrong and that I go along with your answer.

Given the position of Sir Jack at the picture Oscar sorted out for all of us, I wonder a bit if Sir Jack really could have seen Dave loosing control at the end of 4, pretty much around the corner from Sir Jack's point of view at the point where he was when the accident happened.I guess that an overhead shot with everyone in the position may clear up a bit more on that.But as I see this picture, it appears to me that Sir Jack never could have seen Dave being out of control, heading for the wall. About the first thing he could have seen was something of the fireball. And not unlikely that he instantly made the connetion that it was likely macDonald who had a crash.Sir Jack might have seen another `moment` of Dave, I don't rule that option out.

Again, I don't doubt that Gregory may have said something as a warning to Sir Jack.And maybe Jack was referring to something he had seen early on in the laps in which Dave was loose.Please don't think I think you or Sir Jack being liars. It is printed this that approval exists.But there are a number of statements said by Johnny Rutherford printed as well and some of those have been proven to be wrong over time by posters in this message.And it is possible that Sir Jack's words are misunderstood and pulled out of context.

Ray, I writ these lines with the utmost respect to you and Sir Jack Brabham and your opinion. I hope you recognize this.

Brabham's 1971 book, "When the Flag Drops" has no mention of a warning from Gregory...

"That year is one I shall not forget for another reason. It became obvious during practice that the Mickey Thompson cars were difficult to control and Dave MacDonald, a promising young "rookie", was driving one. He had qualified fourteenth, but one the first lap he lost control and that terrible accident happened. I was right behind it all and it was really terrifying. You couldn't believe such a thing was happening in front of you." etc. etc. for another two paragraphs......

But, nothing about Gregory, or a warning, or keeping an eye on MacDonald, or an expectation of a Thompson car crashing.

Well, it was actually a second lap accident. Memory is sometimes not correct.

Ray, MacDonald's lazy spin did not occur until Walt moved drivers left and to me this appears after or at least during the very latter stages of turn four exit.

His suggested odd entrance to turn four may have been nothing more than a fast line around the track that was discovered during the month of May. Perhaps as Andretti did while winning at Daytona in 1967.

Originally posted by David M. KaneI seem to recall that there are two chapters on this race in Michael Argetsinger's book on Walt Hansgen if anyone has their copy handy. Walt was the car in front of Eddie Sachs at the time of the crash.

About time I did this...

Dave MacDonald recognised how difficult the car was, but he had a passion to race in the 500. He had phoned his father, George MacDonald, in Los Angeles during the race week and said he was apprehensive about the handling and didn't think the car was right: "He told me the car seemed to lift and float in the turns," George recalls. "He said the trouble was apparently caused by the fact the car was build for 12" wheels but had to be converted to 15" wheels to meet Indianapolis regulations. the only reason he drove it was that he felt obligated to."

Len Sutton was driving for Rolla Vollstedt, a friend and supporter from Sutton's earliest days of racing in the Pacific Northwest, in a rear-engine car Vollstedt had been developing for a year and a half. Sutton was a top-rank oval driver and had finished second in the 500 to Rodger Ward in 1962 when they both drove for the Leader Card Racing Team. Sutton qualified eighth and was on the row ahead of Walt for the start. Walt passed Sutton on the first lap, and in his book, "My Road to Indy", Len relates his view of the next lap:

In the second lap at the end of the back stretch, going into the third turn, Dave MacDonald went whistling by me, jumped on the binders and proceeded across the short chute in front of me. Walt Hansgen was right in front of him then and Dave drove it deep under him, but not deep enough for Walt to see him. when Hansgen came down, as that was his line, Dave had to get his nose out or turn left enough to keep from running into him.

Dave's back end got away from him and he headed for the inside guard rail. Anyone watching this unfold - and I was - could feel certain it was going to be tragic. By the time Dave's car was off the wall and heading back onto the track, I was just even with him and escaped down the front stretch. Unfortunately for Eddie Sachs, Dave's car collided with him, igniting a second ball of flame and sent a burning tyre and wheel high into the air. The two drivers, from in front of me and behind me, were both killed, burned beyond help.

Jack Brabham, who started behind MacDonald and Sachs in twenty-fifth position, also saw it coming and relates his experience in "The Jack Brabham Story", written with Doug Nye:

All the way round the rolling lap before the start - mindful of Masten's warning - I just kept my eyes riveted on that red car, knowing it was brimful of fuel. It was visibly very unsteady, I did not take my eyes off it.

We came out of turn four, green flags, and we were racing. My eyes were still glued on that odd-looking car a couple of rows ahead. Dave MacDonald nearly lost it in turn two, but caught it. In turn three he was again all over the place. Then, coming out of turn four, it happened. Dave's ultra-low Thompson car flicked broadside, and he lost it.

Instantly I hit my brakes. Dave MacDonald's car speared down to the inside. The ultra-low Thompson car impacted against the concrete wall and exploded like a napalm bomb. the car then ricocheted back up at an angle leaving a blindingly bright wall of orange flame across the track. Eddie Sachs simply couldn't stop. He smashed straight into MacDonald's car, and his own car's fuel load exploded too. He didn't stand a chance.

Despite braking so hard, I just seemed to be accelerating through a funnel between roaring flame and the outside wall. I managed to slow just enough to dodge left through the fire at right angles before the burning wrecks. I was through it literally in a flash, and apart from running over some debris emerged unscathed. The race was stopped.

To this day I'm confident that Masten Gregory's pre-race word saved my life. Tragically, Dave MacDonald died of his burns a few hours later, while Eddie Sachs - poor Eddie, the 'Clown Prince' of Indy who helped make my debut at the famous circuit there in 1961 so enjoyable - had been killed instantly.

David E Davis Jr. provided a trackside observation of the accident in "Car & Driver":

MacDonald had been charging hard, passing several cars on the first lap, and fighting to catch Hansgen, who was cutting his own swath through the field. Coming out of turn four, he evidently decided to try to take Hansgen on the main straightaway. In his usual style, when he was hurrying, he had the tail hung out just a bit, but his line was bad, and the tail started coming around very gradually as the car moved onto the chute at about 140-145. It was not a wild snapping spin, in fact the car had only turned 180 degrees when it hit the inside wall, burst its fuel tank, and erupted in a hundred foot mushroom of flame.

From Walt's rearview mirror, the ball of fire was a shock. He described it for Jim Ogle Jr. in the "Newark Star-Ledger:" "I could hear the explosion and see the giant flames shooting up about 200 feet behind me. It was a terrible and unbelievable sight, and one I'll never forget."

The accident was unprecedented in its ferocity, even at a track that had seen many high-speed impacts. the heat was intense - Brabham said driving through it had been like opening an oven door - and the orange flames and black smoke rose higher than the top of the grandstands. the race was halted for the first time in its history except for rain. It was one hour and forty-three minutes before the drivers were again asked to get back in their cars and go racing again.

Other cars were caught up in the flames, and Ronnie Duman, from Dearborn, Michigan, was the most seriously injured, listed as critical with second-degree burns. Johnny Rutherford and Bobby Unser were treated for minor burns. (Those two would later account for five Indy 500 wins.) Norm Hall, from Hollywood, California, suffered minor cuts but no burns in the accident, and Chuck Stevenson's car was eliminated but he was unhurt. Two USAC observers and two cameramen were treated for smoke inhalation and minor burns. One spectator witnessing the accident was treated for a heart attack. Eddie Sachs, one of the most beloved figures in racing, died in his race car. He was thirty-seven years old. Dave MacDonald, twenty-six, died in the hospital less than three hours after the crash.

Confusion was rampant. the public address system and the radio and closed-circuit TV announcers were attempting to identify which drivers were involved. It was announced that Walt Hansgen was among the drivers in the inferno, and the information was repeated to the closed-circuit TV audience. It was a tough hour for Bev and Rusty Hansgen in the theatre in Trenton until the facts were sorted out. As more information became known, it was tougher still for George MacDonald, watching in a Los Angeles theatre.

Mike has done a great job of putting this together, even though it's only really a sidelight to the story he was writing. I've not long spoken to him on the phone and he's happy to have this brought into this arena to benefit those following this thread.

Thanks, David, for mentioning it.

The above post is #127, page 4 of this thread.It was written by Ray Bell, and is one of the bests, if not the best post of this thread. It contains the essence of the accident, testimonies of 3 ocular witnesses.But there are some minor inconsistencies (marked in red), which do not invalidate these testimonies, these inconsistencies are product of memory, who is not perfect, and emotions. These testimonies were validated by evidences, as movies and photos.Let me show you some research I have made on this subject:1-Len Sutton testimony:Memory played a trick with Len, on the movie I post the captions and the link below, it is shown that Dave probably overtook him on turn 2 of lap 2 (we can't see it in the movie), because on turn 1 of lap 2 Dave was behind him and on the backstretch approaching turn 3 Len was behind Dave. The captions below (backstretch end, lap 2) shows how Dave was fast, because he enters turn 3 well behind Branson, and exits turn four ahead him, heading for the accident. But, Len's description of the accident is correct and supported by the photos and movies, he was right behind Branson and could see it so well he forgot Branson was there.http://www.joost.com...00-AJ-s-2nd-Win2-Jack Brabham testimony:Jack's testimony, as described by Doug Nye, has a load of emotion ("Despite braking so hard, I just seemed to be accelerating through a funnel between roaring flame and the outside wall") and he exaggerates a bit saying "To this day I'm confident that Masten Gregory's pre-race word saved my life", which is not supported by movies nor photograhic evidence. But Sir Jack could see Dave loosing it at the end of turn 4, there's no exaggeration in it: by my calculations he was less than 3/8 of a mile away, or at the end of turn 3, and from this distance it is possible for a driver to see what is happening at the beginning of the mainstretch, specially if he has a reason to do it (he probably saw Dave overtaking Branson somewhere between turns 3 and 4, he could have evaluated well Dave's speed there).The fact that was possible to Sir Jack to see what happened doesn't allow to conclude that Masten's advice saved his life, you can see in the movie and in the photographic evidences that his life wasn't at risk by this accident, Sir Jack exaggerated a little, which is perfectly normal in an emotional testimony.3-David E Davis Jr. testimony:Every word he says is supported by the evidences.

I would like to say a word about Rutherford's testimony, not included here: in the movies we can't see what Johnny Rutherford said about Dave, but this do not mean Rutherford is wrong, because when you are racing, the adrenaline and the proximity allow you to see and feel minor things that can't be seen from the trackside or the grandstands or any movies.

Finally, I must say as a TNF observer that rarely posts, that both of you, Ray and Michael are important references here, and what I'm trying to say with my posts is that both of you are are being unreasonable with this anger, there's no reason to be angry.So please, shake hands and solve any differences, remove the rancor and bring back the joy.

Brian, I amended the B&W photo (post 1306) to include McElreath, well confirmed by Henri observation of the white sidewall tires.

Henri, thanks for your kind words.

Note: If someone wants to check driver's identities on the movies of YouTube, it will be noted that the first car to appear exiting the wreckage area after Rutherford/Duman/Unser is Boyd, the second Johnny White, the third Chesbourg, meaning White overtook Chesbourg inside the wreckage area. I lost a lot of time before understanding this confusion, and I misidentified Boyd as Dick Rathmann because of a shine in the car's nose made me think it was a red car with white nose.I also have a photo from behind taken at the moment Stevenson and Brabham are entering the wreckage area, showing interesting things as how many cars slowed down so fast and Norm Hall didn't, losing it well before the accident area, and also helps to identify the last car of post 1306 photo as Bobby Grim. But, this photo was downloaded in 2002 from a website on this subject and the website doesn't exists anymore, I don't know if it is permitted to post it here.

Oscar ,

The thing that strikes me also about the 2 pics is how much Rutherford Duman & Unser had closed up on Sachs by the time the 2nd pic was taken. Also notice how in the 2nd pic boyd and that group of cars had fallen father back of Unser. I wonder if Sachs slowed but then realized he had some front engined roadsters bearing down on him as well from behind and that limited his options as well. I fear Sach looked at the fire then at the mirrors to see what was gaining on him and realized his situation was very critical even beforeh is 1st impact.

Does anyone know what the weight difference between the shrike and the roadsters were? Pardon me if this was answered in another part of this thread.

Plus since White was a rookie in 1964 perhaps he wasnt able to react to the situation as fast as the veterans Boyd & Chesbourg did when it developed and that how he got past Chesbourg. I wonder if any footage exists from the viewpoint of turn 4 that shows that pass cuz if White and Chesbourg had tangled we could have had a 2nd wave of cars piling in on Sachs and Macdonald and ended up with a fiery version of the 1966 frontstraight crash.

I would like to say a word about Rutherford's testimony, not included here: in the movies we can't see what Johnny Rutherford said about Dave, but this do not mean Rutherford is wrong, because when you are racing, the adrenaline and the proximity allow you to see and feel minor things that can't be seen from the trackside or the grandstands or any movies.

Oscar, since I brought Rutherford back into the discussion.In all fairness to Johnny, I want to make clear that I won't say he is not correct in the thing he saw. He was there so he knows.But one of the still told details about this tragedy is that Johnny spoke about the car of Dave having some 100 or so gallons of gasoline on board.And that is not correct but it's being repeated all the time. But because of that it tarnishes Dave's and Mickey's image as being so stupid to deal with a fuel loaded car that was lethal with that amount of fuel on board.That is the only thing about Rutherford I want to correct him upon. Other then that I believe his stories and the details instantly.

I say this because I want to be known that I don't want to attack Johnny for everthing he has said and done about the accident.

Paul, as to the weight of the cars involved, the Shrike weighed in at about 1150 pounds dry, as did the Thompson car. The roadsters weighed approximately 1400-1500 pounds dry, and the Novi about 2000. These figures are from various sources, including Rodger Huntington's DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDY CAR, Karl Ludvigsen's INDY CARS OF THE 1960's and Denny Miller's EDDIE SACHS: THE CLOWN PRINCE.

If MacDonald had been driving a roadster, Sachs' technique of steering straight for the car as it flashed in front of him probably would have worked; but the #83 was so light that it lost most of it's momentum as it hit the wall and slid back up the track. The roadsters were heavier and thus harder to slow down than the Shrike, and the Novi was a huge overpowered brute that was like a rocket off the turns. Also, everybody involved in the crash knew their best chance to survive was to be going fast enough to push anything they might hit out of the way. Johnny Boyd said in an interview that he even went so far as to put his left foot under his brake pedal so he wouldn't be able to use his brakes at all.

It's obvious from Rutherford's account that Sachs knew he was trapped...he was twisting his head from side-to-side, searching for an opening. He knew his car wasn't heavy enough to push MacDonald out of his way, and he knew the roadsters were heavy enough to run over him.

Paul and Dan, these possibilities came to my mind too when I first saw the photos. Possibly you're very near of what really happened.

Henri, you are right, Rutherford said that wrong thing about the gallons of gasoline, he too was a victim of the rumors of the track these days.I didn't addressed my comments to you, I tried to make a post about the ocular testimonies, showing that sometimes the inconsistencies exists and we can prove it, sometimes they exist but we can't, sometimes they don't exist and it is very good to confirm it but, if there is a doubt, always it must be in the benefit of the witness.

I only remembered of Rutherford's testimony about MacDonald's behavior because Dan said "Dynamic films of the race simply don't show that". I saw another footage (I post the link below) about the race and it confirms Dan's words, but I remembered that thing about adrenaline, and maybe Rutherford was talking about MacDonald fighting with the steering wheel and small slidings of his car, which are huge for someone who is racing right behind or very near, but can't be seen from some distance. I think the benefit of the doubt is in Rutherford's favour. The same benefit must be given to Sir Jack, besides being 3/8 miles away (600 metres) it is possible he has seen Dave losing it.

There are some inconsistencies in Sir Jack's testimony I didn't posted before because I thought it was not so relevant - why he didn't made any mention to the other Thompson? on these 2 laps Eddie Johnson's Thompson was nearer his car than MacDonald's Thompson, could it be Masten's advice was about MacDonald, not about Thompson car? to think that is an absurd, but these things come to our mind when we try to find the logic contained in his words, so why he wasn't worried about Johnson's car, to the point they were fighting for 2 laps, starting very near and overtaking him before the backstretch on second lap? There's only one answer to this - Sir Jack's testimony was an emotional one, although truthful it's impossible to find it entirely logical. To confirm that please, see the movies I'm posting the links below.

Paul and Dan, these possibilities came to my mind too when I first saw the photos. Possibly you're very near of what really happened.

Henri, you are right, Rutherford said that wrong thing about the gallons of gasoline, he too was a victim of the rumors of the track these days.I didn't addressed my comments to you, I tried to make a post about the ocular testimonies, showing that sometimes the inconsistencies exists and we can prove it, sometimes they exist but we can't, sometimes they don't exist and it is very good to confirm it but, if there is a doubt, always it must be in the benefit of the witness.

I only remembered of Rutherford's testimony about MacDonald's behavior because Dan said "Dynamic films of the race simply don't show that". I saw another footage (I post the link below) about the race and it confirms Dan's words, but I remembered that thing about adrenaline, and maybe Rutherford was talking about MacDonald fighting with the steering wheel and small slidings of his car, which are huge for someone who is racing right behind or very near, but can't be seen from some distance. I think the benefit of the doubt is in Rutherford's favour. The same benefit must be given to Sir Jack, besides being 3/8 miles away (600 metres) it is possible he has seen Dave losing it.

There are some inconsistencies in Sir Jack's testimony I didn't posted before because I thought it was not so relevant - why he didn't made any mention to the other Thompson? on these 2 laps Eddie Johnson's Thompson was nearer his car than MacDonald's Thompson, could it be Masten's advice was about MacDonald, not about Thompson car? to think that is an absurd, but these things come to our mind when we try to find the logic contained in his words, so why he wasn't worried about Johnson's car, to the point they were fighting for 2 laps, starting very near and overtaking him before the backstretch on second lap? There's only one answer to this - Sir Jack's testimony was an emotional one, although truthful it's impossible to find it entirely logical. To confirm that please, see the movies I'm posting the links below.

I go entirely along with your opinion/suggestion about drivers saying things in the heat of the moment, the emotion of the ordeal they saw and in some cases survived.The sad thing however is that some statements were made by drivers of name and fam then and of the future (Unser & Rutherford) so their statements of that day (about some details being misinformed) and in the short time therafter are often used. And that's why those facts are repeated every time eventhought there is evidence of the contrary to be found already. But a statement of Unser/Rutherford/Foyt/Brabham always makes more impact then those of others.Even if it turns out to be not true or, unlike.But gven what they saw that day...

But all of that doesn't help to have an unbiased view on the accident. Dave made errors, I can't deny that and won't do that. But he is not guilty of everything thrown at his feet and since he is one of the dead the most easy scapegoat for the job to carry the guilt since he is dead and thus won't have to live with the guilt anymore.But his family....

Boy have I had trouble getting signed in here lately...I'm still working on trying to upload my wire photo of Dave MacDonald...I have one question I've been butting heads with someone over of late...Eddie Sachs and what was the cause of his death..I know its reported he was killed instantly..How was this determined? Was there and autopsy performed? I've read that he was screaming for help and even read where he stood up and then collapsed..can anyone clear this up..I have read thru all the posts and still am unclear on this..My wire photo of MacDonald shows him still seated in the vehicle with a track worker attempting to lift him from the car..Thanks

There have been a couple of posts, including at least one from Buford, which stated that he called out and that he was alive in the fire...

Now there's a 'search topic' feature in this software it should be easy to find that.

Yes I read that..But I was led to believe he was killed instantly..If that were to be true he obvisously burned to death..I guess maybe it is another part of this story we may never know the truth about..Thanks

There were people watching on that heard him scream and saw him move, as I recall...

Yes of course it would be...However...Wikipedia Encylopedia states it this way....He hit MacDonald's car broadside causing a second expolision and died "instantly" of blunt force injuries. I think that these people do research on these claims, Don't You?

There were people watching on that heard him scream and saw him move, as I recall...

Ray,

I think such be possible indeed.Roger Williamson was also told to be dead on impact, David Purley is said to have told so to the journalists for the sake of the Williamson family.But later on he admitted that Roger was still alive. (I that was still necessary: how else to excplained all his attempts for such a long time after the fire broke out?)But this was also a case in which the hard truth was tried to be softenend a bit for the sake of....How many more are there?

Other then Buford's tale I haven't heard of evidence and stories like that about Eddie.But I take Buford serious.So I won't dismiss that story of Eddie surviving the initial impact.

Boy have I had trouble getting signed in here lately...I'm still working on trying to upload my wire photo of Dave MacDonald...I have one question I've been butting heads with someone over of late...Eddie Sachs and what was the cause of his death..I know its reported he was killed instantly..How was this determined? Was there and autopsy performed? I've read that he was screaming for help and even read where he stood up and then collapsed..can anyone clear this up..I have read thru all the posts and still am unclear on this..My wire photo of MacDonald shows him still seated in the vehicle with a track worker attempting to lift him from the car..Thanks

I doubt Sachs "stood up and then collapsed" as I believe he was trapped in the car. Or am I wrong? His standing up is a story I've never heard before. Do you remember where you heard it? One person I know says he was sitting in front of where the accident ended and saw Sachs struggling top get out. In listening to him talk, I certainly think he believes his own story but that doesn't mean he's right. Given the emotional shock of the moment and the flames and black smoke involved I wouldn't accept it as fact, just another inconsistent part of the story.

By the way, as far as you comment about Wikipedia, no, "these people" do not always research their claims. It's user generated material and wrong quite often.

Yes of course it would be...However...Wikipedia Encylopedia states it this way....He hit MacDonald's car broadside causing a second expolision and died "instantly" of blunt force injuries. I think that these people do research on these claims, Don't You?

Welcome and initial posting presentations here at TNF goes a very long way. I learned that the hard way.

TNF members are certainly not a group that spends a lot time at Wikipedia. We do spend a lot of time correcting that sites incorrect information.

Some of the stories spun there are about as accurate as the information presented on Indy 1964 before the TNF members began to straighten things out a bit.

Buford isn't the only person to recall that Sachs survived the initial impact. In the Denny Miller book EDDIE SACHS:THE CLOWN PRINCE, there's a quote from one of Chuck Stevenson's friends regarding this matter. As Chuck came into the accident, he clipped one of Sachs' wheels, and he could see Eddie trying to get out of the car. He never spoke publicly about it, but did speak to a few of his closest friends about it.

Sachs was most likely pinned in his car as a result of the radiator collapsing against one of his feet and the fact that he had a broken leg as a result of the impact with MacDonald. One of his boots was recovered from the cockpit after his body was removed from the car in the garage area. This info is also presented in Miller's book. It was widely circulated in the media that Sachs had a chest injury, some reports even going so far as to say a crushed chest from impacting the steering column; this was attributed to Ted Halibrand who built the car, but Halibrand later recanted this statement. Another report had Sachs cut in two by the car's driveshaft...hard to fathom in a rear-engine car.

Welcome and initial posting presentations here at TNF goes a very long way. I learned that the hard way.

TNF members are certainly not a group that spends a lot time at Wikipedia. We do spend a lot of time correcting that sites incorrect information.

Some of the stories spun there are about as accurate as the information presented on Indy 1964 before the TNF members began to straighten things out a bit.

Henry

Well to give Wikipedia a little credit, they don't have the luxury or time of investigating every topic as thoroughly as this posting has...I find it hard to believe they spun some therory on this accident..I'm sure they based it on the information they had at the time...I'm afraid we may never know the complete truth on this unless there is and Autopsy report...Unfortunately in those days the family decided whether they even conducted one..Now its mandatory

Well to give Wikipedia a little credit, they don't have the luxury or time of investigating every topic as thoroughly as this posting has...I find it hard to believe they spun some therory on this accident..I'm sure they based it on the information they had at the time...I'm afraid we may never know the complete truth on this unless there is and Autopsy report...Unfortunately in those days the family decided whether they even conducted one..Now its mandatory

"They" is anyone who cares to edit the page. Go ahead, try it. You can edit it yourself with no issues.

Most of the stuff on there is great for a quick overview. There are also some real anoraks that provide interesting nuggets. But then there are also articles I read where it will say something totally absurd in a hidden spot in the middle, a clear form of vandalism.

Yes I read that..But I was led to believe he was killed instantly..If that were to be true he obvisously burned to death..I guess maybe it is another part of this story we may never know the truth about..Thanks

With this coming up...again, I will remind everyone that the way to put an end to all speculation is to check Eddie Sachs death certificate at either the state records or county records office.

Caveat: I do not know the status for records in Indiana, what the requirements and fees are. California is an open records state, so public access is available and required. Smaller counties in California do charge for record retrieval. On the other hand, Arizona and New York are closed records states.

The thing that strikes me also about the 2 pics is how much Rutherford Duman & Unser had closed up on Sachs by the time the 2nd pic was taken. Also notice how in the 2nd pic boyd and that group of cars had fallen father back of Unser. I wonder if Sachs slowed but then realized he had some front engined roadsters bearing down on him as well from behind and that limited his options as well. I fear Sach looked at the fire then at the mirrors to see what was gaining on him and realized his situation was very critical even beforeh is 1st impact.

Does anyone know what the weight difference between the shrike and the roadsters were? Pardon me if this was answered in another part of this thread.

Plus since White was a rookie in 1964 perhaps he wasnt able to react to the situation as fast as the veterans Boyd & Chesbourg did when it developed and that how he got past Chesbourg. I wonder if any footage exists from the viewpoint of turn 4 that shows that pass cuz if White and Chesbourg had tangled we could have had a 2nd wave of cars piling in on Sachs and Macdonald and ended up with a fiery version of the 1966 frontstraight crash.

Paul

Been reading with great interest about this horrific moment in Indy history. I took this photo in 1963 and pretty sure it was qualifying weekend. Probably on Saturday. It must be two Mickey Thompson cars going out for practice. The image is from a proof sheet that has shots of Clark and Gurney in the Lotus Fords. I did not see them listed in the starting lineup so presume they did not make the show. Am I correct on this. It could be MacDonald and Gregory? Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ron N. http://img36.imagesh.../indy629601.jpg

Cool pic...it's from 1963, so it couldn't be MacDonald in one of the cars. He only drove at Indy in 1964. Most likely if it's the first qualifying weekend, it's Gregory in one of the cars, and Graham Hill in the other. Hill drove one of the cars briefly, but the hard compound tires weren't to his liking, and the handling was rather poor, according to him(he spun the car twice...). Duane Carter qualified the car during the last qualifying weekend with very little practice in it...he was going to drive one of Mickey's 1962 cars, but had mechanical trouble with that car, and made a spur-of-the-moment decision to drive the car Hill left. He only had the three warmup laps in it before qualifying it, saying it.."was a good car."

Of course, Carter was 50 years old at the time, and had a tremendous amount of experience at Indy that Hill didn't have, so it might be comparing apples to oranges.

[quote name='TrackDog' date='Aug 9 2009, 03:15' post='3789311']
Cool pic...it's from 1963, so it couldn't be MacDonald in one of the cars. He only drove at Indy in 1964. Most likely if it's the first qualifying weekend, it's Gregory in one of the cars, and Graham Hill in the other. Hill drove one of the cars briefly, but the hard compound tires weren't to his liking, and the handling was rather poor, according to him(he spun the car twice...). Duane Carter qualified the car during the last qualifying weekend with very little practice in it...he was going to drive one of Mickey's 1962 cars, but had mechanical trouble with that car, and made a spur-of-the-moment decision to drive the car Hill left. He only had the three warmup laps in it before qualifying it, saying it.."was a good car."

Of course, Carter was 50 years old at the time, and had a tremendous amount of experience at Indy that Hill didn't have, so it might be comparing apples to oranges.

Dan
[/qu

I've never seen a picture of Graham Hill in anything but a Black Helmet with verticle white stripes through out his racing career